Why First Nations Movement Is Our Best Chance for Clean Land and Water

In an urgent pursuit for environmental justice
and basic human rights, First Nations gather across North America under
the banner of Idle No More.

Attawapiskat
Chief Theresa Spence enters her fourth week of a hunger strike outside
the Canadian parliament building, thousands of protesters voice their
support in Los Angeles, London, Minneapolis, and New York City. Spence
and the protesters of the Idle No More movement are drawing attention to
deplorable conditions in native communities and the recent passage of
Bill C-45, which sidesteps most Canadian environmental laws.Put it this way: Before the passage of Bill C-45, 2.6 million rivers,
lakes, and a good portion of Canada’s three ocean shorelines were
protected under the Navigable Waters Act. Now, only eighty-seven are
protected. That’s just the beginning of the problem, which seems not to
have drawn much attention from the general public."Flash mob" protests with traditional dancing and drumming have
erupted in dozens of shopping malls across North America, marches and
highway blockades by aboriginal groups and supporters have emerged
across Canada and as far away as New Zealand and the Middle East. This
weekend, hundreds of native people and their supporters held a flash mob
round dance, with hand drums and singing, at the Mall of America in
Minneapolis, again as a part of the Idle No More protest movement. This
quickly emerging wave of native activism on environmental and human
rights issues has spread like a wildfire across the continent.

Prime Minister Harper’s push for tar sands and mining

A group of natives from Aamjiwnaang First Nation in Sarnia, Ontario,
pitched a pickup truck across the tracks of a Canadian National Railway
spur and blocked train traffic Friday in support of the Idle No More
protest in Ottawa. The blockade began just after Boxing Day, that famed
Canadian holiday, and has continued.The Aamjiwnaang blockade is one of hundreds. A center of controversy
is the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, which would cost $6 billion
and bring tar sands from Alberta to the Pacific. The pipeline will cross
over 40 native nations, all of whom have expressed opposition. The
legislative changes could expedite approval of this and many other
projects—all of which are in aboriginal territories.

Canada often touts a sort of “better than thou” human rights position in the international arena

“Idle No More” is Canadian for “That’s enough BS, we’re coming out to
stop you,” or something like that. Canada often touts a sort of “better
than thou” human rights position in the international arena and has,
for instance, a rather small military, so it’s not likely to launch any
pre-emptive strikes against known or unknown adversaries, and has often
sought to appear as a good guy, more so than its southern neighbor. More
than a few American expatriates moved to Canada during the Vietnam war,
and stayed there, thinking it was a pretty good deal.That is sort of passé, particularly if you are a native person. And
particularly if you are Chief Theresa Spence. Spence is the leader of
Attawapiskat First Nation—a very remote Cree community from James Bay,
Ontario, which is at the bottom of Hudson Bay. The community’s 1,549
on-reserve residents (a third of whom are under the age of 19) have
weathered quite a bit, including the fur trade, residential schools, a
status as non-treaty Indians, and limited access to modern conveniences
such as toilets and electricity. This is a bit commonplace in the far
north, but it has become exacerbated in the past five years.Enter DeBeers, the largest diamond mining enterprise in the world.
The company moved into northern Ontario in 2006. The Victor Mine reached
commercial production in 2008 and was voted “Mine of the Year” by the
readers of the international trade publication, Mining Magazine.
The company states that it is “committed to sustainable development in
local communities.” But this is where the first world meets the third
world in the north, as Canadian MP Bob Rae discovered last year on his
tour of the destitute conditions in the village. Infrastructure in the
subarctic is in short supply. There is no road into the village eight
months of the year; during the other four months, during freeze up,
there’s an ice road. A diamond mine needs a lot of infrastructure. And
that has to be shipped in, so the trucks launch out of Moosonee,
Ontario. Then, they build a better road. The problem is that the road
won’t work when the climate changes, and already stretched
infrastructure gets tapped out.There is some money flowing in, that’s for sure. A 2010 report
from DeBeers states that payments to the eight communities associated
with its two mines in Canada totalled $5,231,000 that year. Forbes
magazine reports that diamond sales by the world’s largest diamond
company “increased 33 percent, year-over-year, to $3.5 billion” and that
DeBeers “reported record EBITDA of almost $1.2 billion, a 55 percent
increase over the first the first half of 2010.”As the Canadian Mining Watch group notes, “Whatever Attawapiskat’s
share of that $5 million is, given the chronic underfunding of the
community, the need for expensive responses to deal with recurring
crises, including one that DeBeers themselves may have precipitated by overloading the community’s sewage system
, it’s not surprising that the community hasn’t been able to translate
its … income into improvements in physical infrastructure.” Last year,
Attawapiskat drew international attention when many families in the Cree
community were living in tents.

The Canadian aboriginal youth suicide rate is five times the national average.

The neighboring village of Kashechewan is in similar disarray. They
have been boiling and importing water. The village almost had a complete
evacuation due to health conditions, and as Alvin Fiddler, Deputy Grand
Chief of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, a regional advocacy network, told a
reporter, “fuel shortages are becoming more common among remote
northern Ontario communities right now.” That’s because the ice road
used to truck in a year’s supply of diesel last winter did not last as
long as usual. “Everybody is running out now. We’re looking at a
two-month gap” until the ice road is solid enough to truck in fresh
supplies, Mr. Fiddler said.Kashechewan’s chief and council are poised to shut down the band
office, two schools, the power generation center, the health clinic, and
the fire hall because the buildings were not heated and could no longer
operate safely. “In addition, some 21 homes had become uninhabitable,”
according to Chief Derek Stephen. Those basements had been flooded last
spring, as the weather patterns changed. (Just as a side note, in 2007,
some 21 Cree youth from Kashechewan attempted to commit suicide, and the
Canadian aboriginal youth suicide rate is five times the national
average.)Both communities are beneficiaries of an agreement with DeBeers.

The lost boys of Aamjiwnaang

Back at Aamjiwnaang, the Ojibwe have blockaded the tracks. Those are
tracks that are full of chemical trains, lots of them. There are some 62
industrial plants in what the Canadian government calls Industrial
Valley. The Aamjiwnaang people would like to call it home, but they’ve a
few challenges in their house.There’s a recent Men’s Health magazine article called, “The Lost Boys
of Aamjiwnaang.” That’s because the Ojibwe Reserve of Aamjiwnaang has
few boys. Put it this way: In a normal society, there are about l05 boys
to l00 girls born. That’s the odds for a thousand years or so. However,
at Aamjiwnaang, things are different.Between 1993 and 2003, there had been two girls born for every boy in
the tribal community, one of the steepest declines ever recorded in
birth gender ratio. As the reporter for Men’s Health notes, “These tribal lands have become a kind of petri dish for industrial pollutants.”

The Ojibwe have faced a chronic dosage of chemicals for twenty-five years, and are concerned about the health impacts.

This trend is international, particularly in more industrialized
countries , and the odd statistics at Aamjiwnaang are indicative of
larger trends. The rail line known as the St. Clair spur, carries
Canadian National and CSX trains to several large industries in Sarnia’s
Chemical Valley. Usually four or five trains move through each day, all
full of chemicals. The Ojibwe have faced a chronic dosage of chemicals
for twenty-five years, and are concerned about the health impacts. They
are also concerned about proposals to move tar sands oil through their
community in a pre-existing pipeline known as Line Nine.The Idle No More movement is further spurred by what Clayton Thomas
Muller, a representative of the movement, calls “the extremist right
wing government of Steven Harper,” a government that seems intent on
selling the natural wealth of the Canadian (aboriginal) north to the
highest bidders in a multinational market. The recent passing of the
omnibus budget Bill C-45, which gutted thirty years of environmental
legislation, was approved by the Senate in a 50-27 vote.Aboriginal leaders charge the Conservative government with pushing
the bill through without consulting them. They note the bill infringes
on their treaty rights, compromises ownership of their land, and takes
away protection for Canada’s waterways and most of the environment.
Since Canada’s economy is largely based on exploiting natural resources
at an alarming rate, moving into a leading position in the world in
terms of greenhouse gas emissions, fracking and lacing pristine water
with cyanide for new mines, it’s convenient to gut the environmental
laws. It’s also convenient to violate the international laws which are
treaties.

Start seeing Indians

In the United States, the native community has been coming out in
numbers and regalia to support the Canadian native struggle to protect
the environment—drawing attention at the same time to similar concerns
and issues here in the U.S. For instance, Ojibwe from the Keewenaw Bay
Community in Michigan rallied against a Rio Tinto Zinc mine project,
while Navajo protesters in Flagstaff, Ariz., continued opposing a ski
project with manufactured snow at a sacred mountain.

“The first Nations are the last best
hope that Canadians have for protecting land for food and clean water
for the future,” said Pamela Paimeta, a spokesperson for Idle No More.

Pamela Paimeta, a spokesperson for the Idle No More movement in
Canada, urges the larger community to see what is occuring across the
country as a reality check.“The first Nations are the last best hope that Canadians have for
protecting land for food and clean water for the future,” she said. “Not
just for our people but for Canadians as well. So this country falls or
survives on whether they acknowledge or recognize and implement those
aboriginal and treaty rights. So they need to stand with us and protect
what is essential.”Meanwhile , Chief Theresa Spence is still hoping to meet with Prime
Minister Stephen Harper, urging him to "open his heart" and meet with
native leaders angered by his policies."He's a person with a heart but he needs to open his heart,” she
said. “I'm sure he has faith in the Creator himself and for him to delay
this, it's very disrespectful, I feel, to not even meet with us.”The reality is that Attawapiskat, Aamjiwnaang, and Kashechewan are
remote native communities that receive little or no attention until a
human rights crisis of great proportion causes national shame.Facebook and social media equalize access for those who never see the
spotlight. (Just think of the Arab Spring). With the help of social
media, the Idle No More movement has taken on a life of its own in much
the same way the first "Occupy Wall Street" camp gave birth to a
multitude of "occupy" protests with no clear leadership."This has spread in ways that we wouldn't even have imagined," said
Sheelah McLean, an instructor at the University of Saskatchewan and one
of the four women who originally coined the "Idle No More" slogan."What this movement is supposed to do is build consciousness about
the inequalities so that everyone is outraged about what is happening
here in Canada. Every Canadian should be outraged."Actually, we all should be outraged, and Idle no More.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License

Winona LaDuke is a contributing editor to YES! Magazine and an
author and activist who writes extensively on native and environmental
issues. Her most recent book is Recovering the Sacred.
She is an Anishinaabekwe (Ojibwe) enrolled member of the Mississippi
Band Anishinaabeg who lives and works on the White Earth Reservations.

Farmers Rally at White House to Protest Monsanto's GMO Empire

As court hears pivotal case for small farmers and organic seed growers, opponents to industrial agriculture speak out

- Jon Queally, staff writer

Hundreds of small farmers and advocates for organic seed
growers gathered outside the White House Thursday, calling on President
Obama and other lawmakers to come to their aid as they continue their
fight against Monsanto, one of the world's largest, most powerful—and to
them sinister—industrial agriculture corporations. (Image: Ecowatch.org) The
farmers and citizens assembled demanded the end of Monsanto's "campaign
of intimidation against America's family farmers" and their relentless
push for GMO (or genetically engineered-GE) crops. The rally followed a court hearing earlier in the day in the ongoing and landmark Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al. v. Monsanto
case, in which OSGATA and other plaintiffs sued the biotech firm for
its continual and aggressive harassment of organic farmers and
independent seed growers. "Family farmers need and deserve the right to farm. We
have a right to grow good food and good seed for our families and our
communities without the threat of trespass and intimidation," Jim
Gerritsen, an organic potato farmer from Maine and President of OSGATA, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, told the enthusiastic crowd.Since 1997, Monsanto has sued, or brought to
court, more than 844 family farms over "patent infringement" after their
GMO seeds spread to nearby farms. The legal battles are more than most
small farmers can battle, and Monsanto's size and financial muscle make
it nearly impossible for individual farmers to fight back. Many are
forced to settle and submit to Monsanto sanctions."We need Court protection so that our families will be
able to carry on our farming tradition and help keep America strong,"
said Gerritsen.Those that gathered called for President Obama to fulfill his
promise to support the labeling of all GMO products, and also halt
pending approval of GE salmon until independent long-term safety tests
can be conducted."America's farmers deserve to be protected from unwanted
contamination of their crops and the continued harassment by biotech
seed giant Monsanto," said Dave Murphy, founder and executive director
of Food Democracy Now!, a grassroots farmer advocacy group and plaintiff in the case. Additionally, he said, "our current regulatory structure
here in the U.S. has failed America's farmers and consumers. The Obama
administration needs to do the right thing to protect our farmers and
make sure that new GE crops go through rigorous safety tests," said
Murphy. "It's time that President Obama live up to his campaign promise
to Iowa farmers in 2007 and label genetically engineered foods. It's the
least that he could do." And the St. Louis Post-Dispatchreports:

The protest suggested an uptick in efforts to demand labeling, which
was defeated in a California ballot initiative in November. Creve
Coeur-based Monsanto spent at least $8 million in an industry-wide
effort to sink the California proposition.Vermont state Sen. David Zuckerman said at the rally that he is
leading an effort in his state seeking legislation requiring labeling of
genetically modified food.Organic farmers, who are pressing a lawsuit against Monsanto, often
complain that their products are threatened by wind-blown pollen from
genetically altered crops."We want and demand the right of clean seed not contaminated by a
massive biotech company that's in it for the profit," Carol Koury, who
operates Sow True Seeds in Asheville, N.C., said at the rally.

Are Wal-Mart and Big Food Lobbying the FDA for a GMO Labeling Law?

High-level executives from some of the U.S.’s largest food
corporations are meeting with the FDA behind closed doors this week to
lobby for a mandatory federal GMO labeling law. Could it be that bad
press and consumer backlash have dulled the enthusiasm of these former
biotech cheerleaders? Or is Big Food just cozying up to the FDA so they
can derail the growing organic and anti-GMO movement and finagle a
federal labeling law so toothless it won’t be worth the ink it takes to
sign it?
According to informed sources in Washington, DC, representatives of
Wal-Mart, General Mills, Pepsi-Frito Lay, Mars, Coca-Cola and others are
meeting with the FDA this week. Wal-Mart came under fire recently
for selling unlabeled and likely hazardous GMO sweet corn in its
stores. General Mills, Pepsi, Mars and Coca Cola have been the targets
of numerous consumer boycotts, including a social media-powered boycott
of "Traitor Brands: "natural” and organic brands whose parent companies
contributed millions of dollars to defeat Prop 37, the Nov. 6
California Ballot Initiative to label GMO foods and ban the routine
industry practice of marketing GMO foods as "natural" or "all natural."
The “Traitor Brands” boycott, initiated by the Organic Consumers
Association, has been gaining steam as other groups pick up the flag.
The boycott hasn’t gone unnoticed by company executives, either. Honest
Tea CEO Seth Goldman sent the OCA a letter defending his brand’s
position, a position
not unlike the one taken recently by Ben & Jerry’s. Both companies
absolve their brands of any responsibility for their parent companies’
donations to the NO on 37 campaign, claiming that they have no say in
corporate-level decisions.
But a look at the Facebook pages
of some of the "Traitor Brands" reveals consumers’ anger and sense of
betrayal. Brands like Honest Tea, Kashi, Muir Glen, Naked Juice,
Cascadian Farms, Horizon, Silk, and Ben & Jerry’s, once sought out
by quality-conscious, loyal consumers willing to pay a little extra for
organic, sustainably produced products, have been tarnished by their
association with the hardline anti-right-to-know policies of Coca-Cola,
Kellogg’s, General Mills, Pepsi, Dean Foods, and Unilever.
Add to that the growing controversy surrounding the pending
commercialization of genetically engineered (GE) salmon; the prospect of
upcoming high-profile GMO labeling legislative battles in Vermont and
Connecticut; and I-522, a major ballot initiative working its way toward
a November 2012 vote in Washington State, and it makes sense that the
Big Food elite may be preparing for a tactical retreat from the largest
food fight in U.S. history.
Is it possible that the threat posed by the growing grassroots GMO
labeling movement has prompted a number of Fortune 500 corporations to
abandon Monsanto and the biotech industry, and rethink the PR and
bottom-line costs of clinging to their anti-right-to-know positions?
After all, it’s not as if these companies are incapable of making
GMO-free products. Though many Americans don’t know it, Wal-Mart,
General Mills, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Nestle, Unilever, Kellogg’s, Starbucks -
even McDonald’s - are GMO-free in Europe, thanks to strict GMO labeling
laws.
Maybe Big Food, faced with the inevitability of states passing mandatory GMO labeling laws, is ready to throw in the towel? As Jennifer Hatcher,
senior vice president of government and public affairs for the Food
Marketing Institute, explained in November, big food corporations are
happy they headed off mandatory GMO labeling by defeating Prop 37 in
California but, “. . . we hope we don’t have too many of them, because
you can’t keep doing that over and over again . . .”.
Or is this just a case of Big Food and indentured FDA bureaucrats
conspiring to confuse consumers and slow the momentum of the nation’s
fast-growing right-to-know and anti-GMO movement? Is this a “bait and
switch” deal to get us to shut up, a tactic to derail the grassroots
Movement that appears on track to pass strict GMO labeling laws in
Washington, Vermont and Connecticut this year?
We should be wary of any compromise deal at the federal level, one that
would preempt the passage of meaningful state GMO labeling laws that
have real teeth. We don’t want to end up with a law like the one Japan
passed in 2001. That law exempted all GMO foods except corn and soy from
being labeled, allowed up to 5% GMO content in individual ingredients,
and exempted cooking oils and other foods where transgenic DNA is
difficult to detect. Similarly, a GMO law passed by Brazil under
pressure from consumers and farmers contained no real requirements for
enforcement, until a recent court decision against Nestle.
And let’s not forget what happened in late 2010
in another closed-door meeting, when members of the “Organic Elite,”
including Whole Foods, tried to engineer a compromise with Monsanto and
the USDA over “co-existence” between GMO alfalfa and organic crops.
Grassroots activism and marketplace pressure can bring about major
changes in corporate behavior and even in public policy. When major food
corporations, under pressure from consumers, break ranks with Monsanto
and the biotech industry, GMO public policy and marketplace dynamics
change dramatically.
The consumer-led rejection since 1994 of Monsanto’s recombinant Bovine
Growth Hormone by family-scale dairy farmers and major dairy brands has
kept rBGH marginalized. Currently less than 10% of U.S. dairy cows are
injected with Monsanto’s (now Elanco’s) rBGH, a hormone linked to
increased risk of cancer in humans, as well as major animal health
damage. Thanks to consumer pressure, many leading dairy brands in the
U.S. are labeled as “rBGH (or rBST) free;” while rBGH is banned
outright in Canada, Europe, Japan, and most industrialized nations.

In 2000, McDonald’s, Burger King, Pringles and McCain opposed
Monsanto’s genetically engineered “New Leaf” potatoes. Their opposition
kept these Bt-spliced “ Frankenspuds” off the market. Similarly, opposition to Monsanto’s GE wheat in 2003, not only by
U.S. wheat farmers, but also by General Mills and Frito-Lay, killed the
commercialization of this multi-billion dollar crop. And it was consumer
pressure that forced Starbucks and other coffee brands to keep GE
coffee off the market. If it’s true that Wal-Mart and a number of big food corporations are
ready to compromise and allow labels on genetically engineered foods,
don’t hold your breath for the Obama Administration’s FDA to quickly
change course. For 20 years FDA bureaucrats, led by Michael “Monsanto”
Taylor, the Obama-appointed FDA Food Safety Czar, have blocked all
attempts to require mandatory federal GMO labeling. Our best chance to
regain our right to know what’s in our food and begin to drive GMOs off
the market is to stay on the offensive. We need to pass mandatory GMO
labeling laws in the current frontline states of Washington, Vermont and
Connecticut, and we need to step up the pressure on Food Inc. with our
boycott of their “Traitor Brands."

And even after we win mandatory GMO labeling on produce and processed
foods, which will realistically take at least several years, we will
still need to fight for labels on GMO-fed, factory-farmed meat, dairy,
and eggs, a more comprehensive labeling law that even the EU does not
yet have in place. At least 80% of GMO crops grown in the U.S. are
destined for animal feed in factory farms. If we’re going to stop these
environmentally disastrous farming practices, we’ll have to demand
labeling of factory-farmed food. And that will require an unprecedented
campaign of public education, direct action, and grassroots
mobilization, similar to the campaign we are already waging for GMO
labeling.

Hats off to the thousands of activists and millions of consumers and
voters who have made GMOs and GMO labeling burning issues in the U.S.
Wal-Mart and the Big Food lobby would not be sitting down behind closed
doors this week asking the FDA to take action if it were not for the
growing online/marketplace/political activism of our nationwide organic
anti-GMO movement. But, as more and more of us understand, this
monumental food fight is not just about labeling GMOs. We are fighting,
as well, for a healthy and sustainable food and farming system, a green
and equitable economy, a stable climate, and a real democracy where
citizens, not corporations and their indentured politicians, rule.

Ronnie Cummins is founder and director of the Organic Consumers Association.
Cummins is author of numerous articles and books, including
"Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers"
(Second Revised Edition Marlowe & Company 2004).

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

I-522 "The People's Right To Know Genetically Engineered Food Act"

Complete Text of I-522 “The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act”AN
ACT Relating to disclosure of foods produced through genetic
engineering; adding a new chapter to Title 70 RCW; and prescribing
penalties. BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The people find that:(1)
Polls consistently show that the vast majority of the public, typically
more than ninety percent, wants to know if their food was produced
using genetic engineering. Without disclosure, consumers of genetically
engineered food unknowingly may violate their own dietary and religious
restrictions.

(2) Currently, there is no federal or state law
that requires food producers to identify whether foods were produced
using genetic engineering. At the same time, the United States Food and
Drug Administration does not require safety studies of such foods.
Unless these foods contain a known allergen, the United States food and
drug administration does not require the developers of genetically
engineered crops to consult with the agency. Consultations with the
United States food and drug administration are entirely voluntary and
the developers themselves may decide what information they may wish to
provide.

(3) Mandatory identification of foods produced with
genetic engineering can provide a critical method for tracking the
potential health effects of consuming foods produced through genetic
engineering.(4) Consumers have the right to know whether the foods they purchase
were produced with genetic engineering. The genetic engineering of
plants and animals is an imprecise process and often causes unintended
consequences. Mixing plant, animal, bacterial, and viral genes in
combinations that cannot occur in nature produces results that are not
always predictable or controllable, and can lead to adverse health or
environmental consequences.(5) United States government scientists have stated that the
artificial insertion of genetic material into plants, a technique unique
to genetic engineering, can cause a variety of significant problems
with plant foods. Such genetic engineering can increase the levels of
known toxicants in foods and introduce new toxicants and health
concerns.(6) Forty-nine countries, including Japan, South Korea, China,
Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Russia, the European Union member
states, and other key United States trading partners, have laws
mandating disclosure of genetically engineered foods on food labels.
Many countries have restrictions or bans against foods produced with
genetic engineering.(7) No international agreements prohibit the mandatory identification of foods produced through genetic engineering.(8) Numerous foreign markets with restrictions against foods produced
through genetic engineering have restricted imports of United States
crops due to concerns about genetic engineering. Some foreign markets
are choosing to purchase agricultural products from countries other than
the United States because genetically engineered crops are not
identified in the United States, making it impossible for buyers to
distinguish what does or does not meet their national labeling laws or
restrictions, rendering United States’ products less desirable. Trade
losses are estimated at billions of dollars. Mandatory identification of
foods produced with genetic engineering can be a critical method for
preserving the economic value of exports to markets with restrictions
and prohibitions against genetic engineering.(9) Industry data shows foods identified as produced without genetic
engineering, including conventional foods identified this way, are the
fastest growing label claim. Consumers have a right to an informed
choice at the point of sale.(10) Farmers from a wheat growing region of the state have gathered
more than two thousand six hundred signatures on a petition demanding
mandatory disclosure for crops produced with genetic engineering. The
farmers are concerned they will lose their wheat export markets if
genetically engineered wheat is approved.(11) Agriculture is Washington’s number one employer and wheat is
Washington’s number two export crop, second only to goods and services
produced by the Boeing company, and ahead of Microsoft, which ranks
third.(12) Preserving the identity, quality, and reliability of
Washington’s agricultural products is of prime importance to our state’s
fiscal health.(13) The cultivation of genetically engineered crops can cause
serious impacts to the environment. For example, most genetically
engineered crops are designed to withstand weed killing herbicides. As a
result, genetically engineered crops have caused hundreds of millions
of pounds of additional herbicides to be applied to the nation’s
farmland. The massive increase in use of these herbicides has caused
emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds, which have infested farm fields
and roadsides, complicating weed control for farmers and encouraging use
of increasingly toxic and more dangerous herbicides. These toxic
herbicides damage the vitality of the soil, contaminate drinking water
supplies, and pose health risks to consumers and farmworkers. The public
should have the choice to avoid purchasing foods produced in ways that
can lead to such harm.(14) United States department of agriculture data shows Washington
state ranks second in the nation for organic farm-gate sales at two
hundred eighty-one million dollars per year. While total United States
food sales are virtually stagnant, growing less than one percent
overall, the organic food industry grew at 7.7 percent according to 2010
data. Sales of organic fruits and vegetables increased eleven and
eight-tenths percent, accounting for approximately twelve percent of all
United States’ fruit and vegetable sales. Organic dairy, another key
industry in Washington state, grew at nine percent and comprises nearly
six percent of the total United States dairy market. Organic farmers are
prohibited from using genetically engineered seeds or livestock feed.(15) Trade industry data shows the organic industry is creating jobs at four times the national rate.(16) Published data shows organic farming is more profitable and
economically secure than conventional farming over the long term. This
important element of Washington’s economy must be protected.(17) Conventional farmers have a right to choose what crops they grow
and many conventional farmers want to grow traditional crops developed
without genetic engineering. Identifying seeds and seed stock produced
with genetic engineering would protect farmers’ rights to know what they
are purchasing and protect their right to choose what they grow.(18) The purpose of this chapter is to ensure people are fully
informed about whether the food they purchase and eat was produced
through genetic engineering so they may choose for themselves whether to
purchase and eat such food. Identifying foods produced through genetic
engineering also will help protect our state’s export market.NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. The definitions in this section apply throughout
this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise.(1) “Department” means the Department of Health.(2) “Enzyme” means a protein that catalyzes chemical reactions of
other substances without itself being destroyed or altered upon
completion of the reactions.(3)(a) “Genetically engineered” means any food that is produced from
an organism or organisms in which the genetic material has been changed
through the application of: (i) In vitro nucleic acid techniques
including recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid techniques and the direct
injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles. In vitro nucleic
acid techniques include, but are not limited to, recombinant
deoxyribonucleic acid or ribonucleic acid techniques that use vector
systems and techniques involving the direct introduction into the
organisms of hereditary material prepared outside the organisms, such as
micro-injection, macro-injection, chemoporation, electroporation,
micro-encapsulation, and liposome fusion; or (ii) fusion of cells,
including protoplast fusion, or hybridization techniques that overcome
natural physiological, reproductive, or recombination barriers, where
the donor cells or protoplasts do not fall within the same taxonomic
family, in a way that does not occur by natural multiplication or
natural recombination.(b) For the purposes of (a) of this
subsection, “organism” means any biological entity capable of
replication, reproduction, or transferring genetic material.(4) “Processed food” means any food other than a raw agricultural
commodity and includes any food produced from a raw agricultural
commodity that has been subject to processing such as canning, smoking,
pressing, cooking, freezing, dehydration, fermentation, or milling.(5) “Processing aid” means:(a) A substance that is added to a
food during the processing of the food but is removed in some manner
from the food before it is packaged in its finished form;(b) A
substance that is added to a food during processing, is converted into
constituents normally present in the food, and does not significantly
increase the amount of the constituents naturally found in the food; or(c)
A substance that is added to a food for its technical or functional
effects in the processing but is present in the finished food at
insignificant levels and does not have any technical or functional
effect in that finished food.(6) “Raw agricultural commodity” has the same meaning as defined by 21 U.S.C. Sec. 321.NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. (1) Beginning July 1, 2015, any food offered for
retail sale in Washington is misbranded if it is, or may have been,
entirely or partly produced with genetic engineering and that fact is
not disclosed as follows:(a) In the case of a raw agricultural
commodity, on the package offered for retail sale, with the words
“genetically engineered” stated clearly and conspicuously on the front
of the package of such a commodity, or in the case of such a commodity
that is not separately packaged or labeled, on a label appearing on the
retail store shelf or bin where such a commodity is displayed for sale;(b)
In the case of any processed food, on the front of the package of such
food produced by a manufacturer, with the words “partially produced with
genetic engineering” or “may be partially produced with genetic
engineering” stated clearly and conspicuously; and(c) In the case of
any seed or seed stock, on the seed or seed stock container, sales
receipt or any other reference to identification, ownership, or
possession, with the words “genetically engineered” or “produced with
genetic engineering” stated clearly and conspicuously.(2) Subsections (1) and (3) of this section do not require either the
listing or identification of any ingredient or ingredients that were
genetically engineered, nor that the term “genetically engineered” be
placed immediately preceding any common name or primary product
descriptor of a food.(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to any of the following:(a)
Food consisting entirely of, or derived entirely from, an animal that
has not itself been genetically engineered, regardless of whether the
animal has been fed or injected with any food produced with genetic
engineering or any drug that has been produced through means of genetic
engineering;(b) A raw agricultural commodity or food that has been
grown, raised, produced, or derived without the knowing and intentional
use of genetically engineered seed or food. To be included within the
exclusion under this subsection, the person supplying a raw agricultural
commodity or food must provide a sworn statement that the raw
agricultural commodity or food: (i) Has not been knowingly or
intentionally produced through genetic engineering; and (ii) has been
segregated from, and has not been knowingly or intentionally commingled
with, foods that may have been genetically engineered at any time. In
providing such a sworn statement, a person may rely on a sworn statement
from his or her own supplier that contains such an affirmation;(c)
Any processed food that would be subject to this section solely because
one or more processing aids or enzymes were produced or derived with
genetic engineering;(d) Any alcoholic beverage that is subject to regulation under Title 66 RCW;(e)
Until July 1, 2019, any processed food that would be subject to this
section solely because it includes one or more materials produced by
genetic engineering, provided that the engineered materials in the
aggregate do not account for more than nine-tenths of one percent of the
total weight of the processed food;(f) Food that an independent
organization has determined has not been knowingly and intentionally
produced from or commingled with genetically engineered seed or
genetically engineered food, provided that such a determination has been
made pursuant to a sampling and testing procedure approved for this
purpose in rules adopted by the department. These rules may not approve a
sampling and testing procedure unless it is consistent with sampling
and testing principles recommended by internationally recognized
standards organizations, such as the international standards association
and the grain and feed trade association. No testing procedure may be
approved by the department unless: (i) It does not rely on testing
processed foods in which no deoxyribonucleic acid is detectable; and
(ii) it is consistent with the most recent “Guidelines on Performance
Criteria and Validation of Methods for Detection, Identification and
Quantification of Specific DNA Sequences and Specific Proteins in Foods”
(CAC/GL 74, 2010) published by the codex alimentarius commission;(g)
Food that has been lawfully certified to be labeled, marketed, and
offered for sale as “organic” pursuant to the federal organic foods
production act of 1990 and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto
by the United States department of agriculture;(h) Food that is not
packaged for retail sale and that either: (i) Is a processed food
prepared and intended for immediate human consumption; or (ii) is
served, sold, or otherwise provided in any restaurant or other food
service establishment that is engaged primarily in the sale of food
prepared and intended for immediate human consumption; or(i) Medical food.NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. The department may adopt rules necessary to
implement this chapter, provided that the department is not authorized
to create any exemptions beyond those provided in section 3(3) of this
act.NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. (1) The department, acting through the attorney
general, may bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to
enjoin any person violating this chapter.(2) The department may assess a civil penalty against any person
violating this chapter in an amount not to exceed one thousand dollars
per day. Each day of violation is considered a separate violation.(3) An action to enjoin a violation of this chapter may be brought in
any court of competent jurisdiction by any person in the public
interest if the action is commenced more than sixty days after the
person has given notice of the alleged violation to the department, the
attorney general, and to the alleged violator.(4) The court may award to a prevailing plaintiff reasonable costs
and attorneys’ fees incurred in investigating and prosecuting an action
to enforce this chapter.NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. Sections 1 through 5 of this act constitute a new chapter in Title 70 RCW.NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. If any provision of this act or its application
to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act
or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is
not affected.SOURCE: http://www.labelitwa.org/

Citizens Call for GMO Labeling in Washington

By Mike Barrett, NaturalSociety

07 January 13, 2013

nce
again the fight for GMO labeling has reignited with the introduction of
a new GMO labeling bill, but this time in Washington. The "Label it Wa"
campaign has already gained 350,000 signatures, and is finally headed
to the Secretary of State's office in Olympia for submission. As the
movement comes during the same time that a New Mexico law
calls for mandatory labeling of GMOs, it is obvious that individuals everywhere are still deeply concerned over the issue of GMOs.

If you aren't concerned about GMOs, or think that
foods aren't labeled due to a lack of support over the issue, think
again. In addition to being linked to weight gain and disrupting vital
organs like the liver,
GMO foods have actually been shown to cause massive tumors in rats, in addition to causing early death. Even more concerning is the fact that nearly 80% of the US food supply
contains GMO ingredients. Ingredients that are likely created by
biotech giant Monsanto, who is responsible for upwards of 90 plus
percent of the world's GM seed supply.

Perhaps this is why grassroots movements are popping up all around the country, and other nations have already taken a stand
against GMOs. Despite the largest GMO labeling campaign Prop 37 taking a
dive (due to false advertising and quite possibly questionable vote
counting), still over 90 percent of citizens in the United States are heavy supporters of GMO labeling legislation.

Will the interest of Washington citizens win this campaign? One county in Washington, San Juan, has already succeeded in banning GMOs - at least to a degree. The residents helped pass Initiative Measure No. 2012-4
late last year that makes it illegal to "propagate, cultivate, raise or
grow plants, animals and other organisms which have been genetically
modified." Despite not effecting GMO products in stores, it's still a
step in the right direction for Washington citizens. It should also be
noted that citizens of Washington have also helped pass one of the first
amendments allowing for the recreational use of marijuana - another
move that shouts 'we demand individual rights' by the people.

In the end, every act toward the labeling of GMOs
brings us one step closer to winning the fight for these rights (and an
overall ban on the disease-linked creations). California's Prop 37 may
not have passed, but the bill, along with the Washington bill and every
other GMO labeling bill, are necessary stepping stones for both labeling
of GMOs and the essential 'right to know'.

Family Farmers Mobilize in Ongoing Battle Against Monsanto

Group heads to federal appeals court to be free from "legal threats and intimidation" from genetically modified giant

- Andrea Germanos, staff writer

A group of family farmers is headed to a federal appeals court
on Thursday in their ongoing battle against genetically modified seed
giant Monsanto.The group's suit, first filed by lead plaintiff Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) in March 2011, argues
(.pdf) that farmers who want nothing to do with genetically modified
(transgenic) seed could have their crops unwillingly contaminated by it
and "could quite perversely also be accused of patent infringement by
the company responsible for the transgenic seed that contaminates them."The was dismissed in February 2012 by Federal Judge Naomi Buchwald, but attorney Dan Ravicher of the not-for-profit Public Patent Foundation
said, "The District Court erred when it denied the organic seed
plaintiffs the right to seek protection from Monsanto's patents."In July of 2012 the group filed an appeal to reverse the lower
court's decision, and on Thursday the US Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit will hear that appeal."It's time to end Monsanto's campaign of fear against America's
farmers and stand up for farmers' right to grow our food without legal
threats and intimidation," said Dave Murphy, founder and executive
director of Food Democracy Now!.Murphy states that Monsanto, which has a history of lawsuits against
family farmers, has waged a "campaign of fear against America's
farmers."Jim Gerritsen, President of OSGATA adds, "We are not customers of
Monsanto. We don't want their seed. We don't want their gene-spliced
technology. We don't want their trespass onto our farms. We don't want
their contamination of our crops. We don't want to have to defend
ourselves from aggressive assertions of patent infringement because
Monsanto refuses to keep their pollution on their side of the fence. We
want justice."SOURCE: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/01/08-11

* Case against Monsanto 1st such claim to reach French court
* Monsanto lawyer says "disappointed", envisages appeal
* Pesticide makers see no evidence of major health risk
By Catherine Lagrange and Marion Douet
LYON/PARIS, Feb 13 (Reuters) - A French court on Monday declared
U.S. biotech giant Monsanto guilty of chemical poisoning of a French
farmer, a judgment that could lend weight to other health claims against
pesticides. In the first such case heard in court in France, grain grower
Paul Francois, 47, says he suffered neurological problems including
memory loss, headaches and stammering after inhaling Monsanto's Lasso
weedkiller in 2004. He blames the agri-business giant for not providing adequate warnings on the product label. The ruling was given by a court in Lyon, southeast France, which
ordered an expert opinion of Francois's losses to establish the amount
of damages. "It is a historic decision in so far as it is the first time that
a (pesticide) maker is found guilty of such a poisoning," François
Lafforgue, Francois's lawyer, told Reuters. Monsanto said it was disappointed by the ruling and would examine whether to appeal the judgment.

"Monsanto always considered that there were not sufficient elements
to establish a causal relationship between Paul Francois's symptoms and a
potential poisoning," the company's lawyer, Jean-Philippe Delsart,
said. Previous health claims from farmers have foundered because of the
difficulty of establishing clear links between illnesses and exposure
to pesticides. Francois and other farmers suffering from illness set up an
association last year to make a case that their health problems should
be linked to their use of crop protection products. The agricultural branch of the French social security system says
that since 1996, it has gathered farmers' reports of sickness
potentially related to pesticides, with about 200 alerts a year. But only about 47 cases have been recognised as due to pesticides
in the past 10 years. Francois, who suffers from neurological problems,
obtained work invalidity status only after a court appeal.
LESS INTENSIVE NOW
The Francois case goes back to a period of intensive use of
crop-protection chemicals in the European Union. The EU and its member
countries have since banned a large number of substances considered
dangerous. Lasso, a pre-emergent soil-applied herbicide that has been used
since the 1960s to control grasses and broadleaf weeds in farm fields,
was banned in France in 2007 following an EU directive after the product
had already been withdrawn in some other countries. Though it once was a top-selling herbicide, it has gradually lost
popularity, and critics say several studies have shown links to a range
of health problems. Monsanto's Roundup is now the dominant herbicide used to kill
weeds. The company markets it in conjunction with its biotech
herbicide-tolerant "Roundup Ready" crops. The Roundup Ready corn,
soybeans, cotton and other crops do not die when sprayed directly with
the herbicide, a trait that has made them wildly popular with U.S.
farmers. But farmers are now being encouraged to use more and different
kinds of chemicals again as Roundup loses its effectiveness to a rise of
"super weeds" that are resistant to Roundup. And while the risks of pesticide are a generally known and
accepted hazard of farming in most places, and farmers are cautioned to
take care when handling the chemicals, increased use of pesticides will
only cause more harm to human health and the environment, critic say. "The registration process does not protect against harm.
Manufacturers have to be held liable for adverse impacts that occur,"
said Jay Feldman, director of Beyond Pesticides, a non-profit group
focused on reducing pesticide use. France, the EU's largest agricultural producer, is now targetting
a 50 percent reduction in pesticide use between 2008 and 2018, with
initial results showing a 4 percent cut in farm and non-farm use in
2008-2010. The Francois claim may be easier to argue than others because he
can pinpoint a specific incident - inhaling the Lasso when cleaning the
tank of his crop sprayer - whereas fellow farmers are trying to show
accumulated effects from various products.
"It's like lying on a bed of thorns and trying to say which one cut
you," said a farmer, who has recovered from prostate cancer and asked
not to be named. The French association of crop protection companies, UIPP, says
pesticides are all subject to testing and that any evidence of a cancer
risk in humans leads to withdrawal of products from the market. "I think if we had a major health problem with pesticides, we
would have already known about it," Jean-Charles Bocquet, UIPP's
managing director, said. The social security's farming branch this year is due to add
Parkinson's disease to its list of conditions related to pesticide use
after already recognising some cases of blood cancers and bladder and
respiratory problems.
France's health and environment safety agency (ANSES), meanwhile,
is conducting a study on farmers' health, with results expected next
year.Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/13/monsanto-guilty-paul-francois_n_1274326.html